PER:
Charanjit Singh, President
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 34, 35 and 36 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant Jujharpal Singh has some domestic problem and due to that reason he cannot file and pursue the present complaint himself, therefore, he has appointed/ authorized/ empowered to Manjnder Singh son of Satnam Singh resident of Patti, District Tarn Taran as his special power of attorney holder through attorney dated 4.8.2022. The complainant purchased one refrigerator of L.G. Company from the opposite party No. 1 on 19.3.2021 for sum of Rs. 98,940/- and the complainant paid amount of above said refrigerator to the opposite party No. 1 through credit card and opposite party No. 1 issued one Tax Invoice/ Bill dated 19.3.2021, Invoice No. GST-1348. At the time of purchasing the above said refrigerator the opposite party No. 1 gave one year warranty of the said item/ refrigerator and 10 years of compressor warranty. From the very beginning of purchase of refrigerator it is starting problems and unfortunately on 15.5.2022 the above said refrigerator stopped from making ice due to some then the complainant moved one complaint on 18.5.2022 to consumer care regarding the above said refrigerator and its complaint Number is RNP220518015862. On 20.5.2022 one employee of the said L.G. Company came in the house of complainant and stated that the above said refrigerator is now out of warranty and he made demand of Rs. 1,050/- for repair the above said refrigerator, then the complainant paid Rs. 1,050/- to the said company’s employee on the same day and above said employee repaired the said refrigerator of the complainant but the refrigerator of the complainant did not work properly. Then the complainant again moved complaint to the customer care and customer care told to the complainant that he has forwarded the complaint of complainant to the concerned employee and also assured to the complainant that employee of the said company will repair the refrigerator in the above said charges, which has already been paid by the complainant but no any employee came in the house of complainant regarding repair the said refrigerator of the complainant. On 6.6.2022 the complainant again moved one complaint to the customer care bearing its complaint No. RNP220606061341. The complainant also moved so many complaints to the customer care on different dates, but every time the customer care gave assurance to the complainant that he had highlighted the complaint of complainant and customer care also assured to the complainant that he will repair the said refrigerator of the complainant within short span of time but all in vain. After that on 13.6.2022, the complainant alongwith Rajesh Kumar son of Mohan Lal resident of Ward No. 4 Patti, District Tarn Taran visited to the shop of opposite party No. 1 and stated to him regarding the above said problem of refrigerator then the opposite party No. 1 again assured to the complainant that he will repair the said refrigerator of the complainant within short span of time but all in vain. Thereafter the complainant number of times approached to the opposite parties for repair the above said refrigerator but the opposite parties always linger on the matter under one and other pretext and now they have finally refused to the genuine request of the complainant. The above said refrigerator has 10 years of compressor warranty and the problem in the refrigerator is of compressor/ manufacture. As such, the refrigerator in question covered under the warranty period. The complainant suffered so many difficulties in the summer days, under forced and compelling circumstances the complainant again purchased one new refrigerator on 5.6.2022 from National T.V. Center Main Bazar near Kiran Cinema Patti District Tarn Taran and spent huge amount of Rs. 14,000/-. There is some inherited/ manufacture defect in the refrigerator and the complainant has requested many a times to replace the above said refrigerator with new one of same make and same model but the opposite parties are putting off the matter under one pretext or the other and finally refused to accept the request of the complainant. The complainant has prayed the following reliefs:-
- Replace the refrigerator with new one of the same make and same model or to refund Rs. 98,940/- to complainant.
- To pay Rs. 14,000/- to the complainant which the complainant has spent under forced and compelling circumstances for purchasing alternative refrigerator,
- To return Rs. 1050/- which the opposite party has illegally charged from the complainant.
- To give Rs. 50,000- as compensation of damages to complainant.
- To give Rs. 11,000/- to complainant as litigation expenses.
- Any other relief to which the complainant finds entitled to.
Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, affidavit of witness Rajesh Kumar son of Mohan Lal resident of Ward No. 4 Patti District Tarn Taran Ex. C-2, Copy of Adhar Card Ex. C-3, Cop[y of Bill dated 19.3.2021 Ex. C-4, Copy of complaint/ message Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-7, Copy of Bill dated 5.6.2022 Ex. C-8, Special Power of attorney Ex. C-9, Copy of total free call history Ex. C-10, copy of Adhar Card Ex. C-11.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complainant has got no cause of action against the opposite parties, the present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and has filed the false and frivolous complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed. The complaint involves complex question of law and facts, as such, this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The complaint is not in proper form and bad for non joinder of necessary party and has been left for reasons better known to the complainant as such the complaint merits dismissal on this score. The complainant was not given any guarantee of any kind. Only warranty obligations were assured as per warranty card given to the complainant which has been mischievously concealed. The product was sold on limited warranty basis and the service engineer of service centre visited complainant whenever the complaint was lodged and on receipt of the legal notice and found the product to the satisfaction of complainant and there remains no problem in the product to be resolved. As per the warranty obligations the complaint was to be lodged with the authorized service centre and not to any other party. No complaint has ever been lodged with the authorized service centre of the opposite parties. The compressor has no problem and working satisfactorily. The complainant has got no cause of action against the opposite parties, the present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law. There is no adequate service, unfair trade practice, malfunctioning and harassment as alleged rather the complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of Akhil Kumar Area Service Head Ex. OP1,2/1.
3 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite parties and have carefully gone through the record placed on the file.
4 The representative of complainant contended that complainant Jujharpal Singh has some domestic problem and due to that reason he cannot file and pursue the present complaint himself, therefore, he has appointed/ authorized/ empowered to Manjnder Singh son of Satnam Singh resident of Patti, District Tarn Taran as his special power of attorney holder through attorney dated 4.8.2022 which is Ex. C-9 on record. He further contended that the complainant purchased one refrigerator of L.G. Company from the opposite party No. 1 on 19.3.2021 for sum of Rs.98,940/- . The complainant paid amount of above said refrigerator to the opposite party No. 1 through credit card and opposite party No. 1 issued one Tax Invoice/ Bill dated 19.3.2021, Invoice No. GST-1348 which is Ex. C-4. At the time of purchasing the above said refrigerator the opposite party No. 1 gave one year warranty of the said item/ refrigerator and 10 years of compressor warranty. He further contended that from the very beginning of purchase of refrigerator it is starting problems and unfortunately on 15.5.2022 the above said refrigerator stopped from making ice due to some then the complainant moved one complaint on 18.5.2022 to consumer care regarding the above said refrigerator and its complaint Number is RNP220518015862. He further contended that on 20.5.2022 one employee of the said L.G. Company came in the house of complainant and stated that the above said refrigerator is now out of warranty and he made demand of Rs. 1,050/- for repair the above said refrigerator, then the complainant paid Rs. 1,050/- to the said company’s employee on the same day and above said employee repaired the said refrigerator of the complainant but the refrigerator of the complainant did not work properly. He further contended that the complainant again moved complaint to the customer care and customer care told to the complainant that he has forwarded the complaint of complainant to the concerned employee and also assured to the complainant to complainant that employee of the said company will repair the refrigerator in the above said charges, which has already been paid by the complainant but no any employee came in the house of complainant regarding repair the said refrigerator of the complainant. He further contended that on 6.6.2022 the complainant again moved one complaint to the customer care bearing its complaint No. RNP220606061341 and the complaint/ messages are Ex. C-5 to C-7. The complainant also moved so many complaints to the customer care on different dates, but every time the customer care gave assurance to the complainant that he had highlighted the complaint of complainant and customer care also assured to the complainant that he will repair the said refrigerator of the complainant within short span of time but all in vain. After that on 13.6.2022, the complainant alongwith Rajesh Kumar son of Mohan Lal resident of Ward No. 4 Patti, District Tarn Taran visited to the shop of opposite party No. 1 and stated to him regarding the above said problem of refrigerator then the opposite party No. 1 again assured to the complainant that he will repair the said refrigerator then the opposite party No. 1 again assured to the complainant that he will repair the said refrigerator of the complainant within short span of time. He further contended that thereafter the complainant number of times approached to the opposite parties for repair the above said refrigerator but the opposite parties always linger on the matter under one and other pretext and now they have finally refused to the genuine request of the complainant. The above said refrigerator has 10 years of compressor warranty and the problem in the refrigerator is of compressor/ manufacture. As such, the refrigerator in question covered under the warranty period. He further contended that the complainant faced so many difficulties in the summer days, under forced and compelling circumstances the complainant again purchased one new refrigerator on 5.6.2022 from National T.V. Center Main Bazar near Kiran Cinema Patti District Tarn Taran which is Ex. C-8 and spent huge amount of Rs. 14,000/-. There is some inherited/ manufacture defect in the refrigerator and the complainant has requested many a times to replace the above said refrigerator with new one of same make and same model but the opposite parties are putting off the matter under one pretext or the other and finally refused to accept the request of the complainant.
5 On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party contended that the complainant has got no cause of action against the opposite parties, the present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and has filed the false and frivolous complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed. He further contended that the complaint involves complex question of law and facts, as such, this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The complaint is not in proper form and bad for non joinder of necessary party and has been left for reasons better known to the complainant as such the complaint merits dismissal on this score. He further contended that the complainant was not given any guarantee of any kind. Only warranty obligations were assured as per warranty card given to the complainant which has been mischievously concealed. The product was sold on limited warranty basis and the service engineer of service centre visited complainant whenever the complaint was lodged and on receipt of the legal notice and found the product to the satisfaction of complainant and there remains no problem in the product to be resolved. He further contended that as per the warranty obligations the complaint was to be lodged with the authorized service centre and not to any other party. No complaint has ever been lodged with the authorized service centre of the opposite parties. The compressor has no problem and working satisfactorily. The complainant has got no cause of action against the opposite parties, the present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law. He further contended that there is no adequate service, unfair trade practice, malfunctioning and harassment as alleged rather the complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed.
6 We have heard the rival contention of the parties.
7 In the present case, it is not disputed that the complainant has purchased the refrigerator from the opposite party vide invoice Ex. C-4. The dispute in the present case is that the complainant has purchased the refrigerator and according to complainant after some time from the purchase, the refrigerator started giving problems and the complainant lodged complaint with the toll free Number and the complainant has made complaint to the opposite parties which is clear from the record Ex. C-5 to C-7. Perusal of Ex. C-5 shows that on 6th June the complainant lodged the complaint to the opposite party regarding the problem in the refrigerator in question. Ex. C-6 shows that on 17th June again the complainant made complaint to the opposite party regarding the problem in refrigerator and Ex. C-7 shows that on 27th June again the complainant made complaint regarding the problem in the refrigerator in question. On 20.5.2022 employee of the LG company came to the house of the complainant and he made demand of Rs. 1050/- for repair the above said refrigerator and the complainant paid Rs.1050 /- to the said employee on the same day. But after repair the refrigerator of the complainant was not working properly. Due to winter season, the complainant has purchased another refrigerator on 5.6.2022 under forced circumstances, in the summer season. The complainant has also placed on record affidavit of Rajesh Kumar son of Mohan Lal resident of Ward No. 4 Patti who supported the version of the complainant. On the other hands, the opposite party admitted that the service engineer of service centre visited complainant whenever the complaint was lodged and on receipt of the legal notice and found the product to the satisfaction of complainant and there remains no problem in the product to be resolved. As such from the admission of the opposite party it is proved that the refrigerator in question was not working properly and there was some problem in the said product. Any consumer would like to purchase a brand new product just to avoid any unnecessary hardship and inconvenience, so that the said product may work properly at least for a minimum period of two three years.
8 The expression ‘deficiency’ of services is defined under Section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Now Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019], which is reproduced as under: “
(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
The quality, standard, purity and potency of the goods have to be considered in the light of definition of the word, “defect”, as given in Section 2 (1) (f) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [now Section 2 (10) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019], which is reproduced as under:
“(f) "defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.”
On perusal of above provisions of the Act, it is clear that “defect” means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard, which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force. Keeping in view the above credentials, the ‘defect’ is to be ascertained and if such a defect occurs in a brand new product, then the onus is upon the manufacturer to prove that it is free from any defect and the defect in the same was not a manufacturing one. The OPs have failed to prove that the defect in the product was not a manufacturing defect.
9 It is admitted fact that the complainant is approaching the opposite parties several times from the very start and the complaints Ex. C-5 to C-7 show that there is some problem in the refrigerator from the very beginning. The record shows that the complainant has purchased the refrigerator on 19.3.2021 and made the complaint to the opposite party again and again. It all shows that there is some inherit defect in the refrigerator in question. The perusal of record shows that defect in the product in question occurred again and again in a very short period. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Limited 11(2014) CPJ page 17 has held that
“failure of compressor within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defects- when any company stopped manufacturing particular model under these circumstances only way left is to refund of money alongwith interest- Product found to be defective at the very outset- It is always better to order for refund of amount.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Hindustan Motors Limited and Anr. Vs. N.Shiva Kumar and Anr. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 654 has held that
“when any company had stopped manufacturing the particular model, under those circumstances, there is no other way except to refund of money alongwith interest, compensation and cost.”
In the instant case, the A.C in question started giving troubles within warranty period. In this regard, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Shirish Vs. C.S.Rahalkar (Dr) in 2010(3) CLT page 209 has held that
“the respondent had paid Rs.32,500/- for an original Amtrex air –conditioner and not an assembled air-conditioner. The State Commission has rightly held the petitioner guilty of Unfair Trade Practice as defined under section 2(1) (i) ® of the Consumer Protection Act and consequently, directed the petitioner to compensate the respondent for the same.”
10 The complaint is not entitled to other relief i.e. return of Rs. 1,050/- because no receipt regarding the payment has been place on the record by the complainant. The complainant is also not entitled to Rs. 14,000/- i.e. amount which has been spent by the complainant vide Ex. C-8 because the said product is still with the complainant and he is using the same. In the present case, the complainant has lost his faith in opposite party.
11 In view of above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund the price of the refrigerator in question. On receiving the above amount, the complainant will hand over the refrigerator in question to the opposite party. The complainant is also entitled to Rs. 7,500/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses from the opposite party. Opposite Party is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @9% per annum, on the awarded amount from the date of complaint till its realisation. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Commission
25.10.2023
